Environmental science researchers need to create a "new narrative" to show that nature can nurture economic growth, British sustainability adviser Tony Juniper has said.
Even campaign groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth can create the false impression that there is a conflict between the environment and the economy, when in fact respect for nature can boost gross domestic product (GDP), Mr Juniper said at NUI Galway (NUIG) yesterday.
Costa Rica, Belize and Brazil are examples of countries which recognised that “parallel accounting” of nature’s performance through “changing mindsets in government finance departments” could yield benefits, he told researchers at NUIG Ryan Institute’s environment gathering.
Mr Juniper, an author, former Friends of the Earth executive director and special adviser to Prince Charles in Britain, compared the impact of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita on the US coastline in 2005. Both storms were category five hurricanes, and Rita hit the shore 400km to the west of Katrina in a less populated area.
However, the devastation wrought by Katrina was exacerbated by damage to coastal wetlands around Louisiana, whereas Rita’s impact was diminished as it crossed very healthy wetlands.
There were countless examples all over the world where wetlands and mangrove swamps had a direct beneficial effect in providing an “insurance policy” against extreme weather events, he said.
Yet such wetlands and seagrass beds were being removed to make way for port expansion, he said. Upland bogs also required protection as they served as enormous “sponges” for heavy rainfall, he noted.
Mr Juniper cited the use of the now-banned drug diclofenac, administered on buffalo and cattle in India, as an example of an untold negative impact on the environment.
The drug’s use from 1993 to 2006 killed up to 99 per cent of the vulture population, which had been responsible for disposing of up to 12 million tonnes of the remains of dead animals annually.
The wild dog population increased as a result, spreading rabies and causing an estimated 50,000 extra human deaths - which translated into a public health cost for the Indian government estimated at 34 billion US dollars, he said.
There were many positive examples of the value of predators, such as that identified by Dutch researchers who found that there was a 50 per cent higher fruit yield in an orchard where great tits fed on caterpillars than in an area where such birds were excluded, he said.
Scientists needed to highlight such research findings to help in creating a “different narrative” around the value of biodiversity in economic terms, he emphasised, and around the risks to same from use of chemical pesticides and other human activities degrading land and ocean environments.
Brazil had recognised that its agricultural export economy would be affected by rain loss, and took the decision to stop deforestation, he said. It had recognised that the market value of timber was outweighed by the non-market value of ensuring that rainforests survived, he noted.
Similarly, Costa Rica had been clearing forests to feed the fast food industry when it recognised that there was a need for “parallel natural accounts”. The country had doubled its gross domestic product when it doubled its forest cover, he said.
Researchers who relied on evidence often found it difficult to battle the “propaganda, half truths and sometimes outright lies” of climate change deniers - funded by fossil fuel and agricultural interests, he said.
However, non-governmental organisations needed to improve their communications too, he pointed out, as most people would accept that there was no conflict between environment and economy if the research case was made for same.
